In Obama SOTU, overseas usually means underplayed

President Barack Obama dedicated a whopping 10 minutes in his State of the Union address last year to the swarm of international challenges facing the United States.

Now, just a year later, with America facing the same — or even worsening — array of international dangers, the issue of foreign policy isn’t expected to get more than a smattering of attention from the president Tuesday night.

Text Size

-

+

reset

What to expect on defense

“Anyone thinking really seriously about Syria, Egypt, Israel and Palestine, local Al Qaeda chapters popping up all over the world, our relations with China and the threat of a nuclear Iran would have to say this is a very challenging time for U.S. foreign policy,” said Clinton national security speechwriter David Halperin.

And while Obama’s State of the Union speeches have always focused on domestic, not international, policy, the president could be missing an opportunity to boost his approval ratings, which have slipped under water for the first time on questions of foreign affairs.

White House aides are confident the president’s core national security message resonates with the public: Obama, they say, got us out of the war in Iraq, is getting us out of Afghanistan and has kept the threat of terrorism at home in check.

Here’s POLITICO’s look at international issues likely to rate a mention in Obama’s big speech:

Obama vs. Congress vs. Iran

The possibility of new nuclear sanctions on Iran is clearly the hottest foreign policy issue on Congress’s agenda and the one area where Obama’s State of the Union remarks could most directly advance his policy goals. He leveraged public opposition to new U.S. military action in the Mideast to blunt lawmakers’ drive to pass new sanctions — sanctions many on the Hill are bent on passing, despite the White House’s repeated warnings that doing so will upend negotiations with Tehran.

Obama can use recent developments to back up his point: Last week, Iran halted production of its most-enriched uranium under a six-month deal that administration officials hope will be a steppingstone to a permanent agreement.

“I would expect him to make a very forceful case for his diplomatic effort and against new sanctions or other efforts to undermine diplomacy,” said Dylan Williams of the Jewish-American group J Street, which backs the administration’s strategy.

The president’s been pretty aggressive in his anti-sanctions rhetoric recently, even suggesting that supporters of new sanctions on Capitol Hill are kowtowing to hawkish Jewish groups.

“I think the politics of trying to look tough on Iran are often good when you’re running for office or if you’re in office,” Obama said last month.

What infuriates new sanctions backers is when the White House paints them as eager for war. Look for Obama to come close to that red line without crossing it, by arguing that new sanctions would make military action more likely — regardless of whether that’s anyone’s desire.

An end to Afghanistan

Obama’s topline here, pulling U.S. combat troops out by the end of the year, is a sure winner with the public. But the scene those troops will leave behind is looking more and more unsavory from an American perspective.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign a security agreement that would allow a few thousand U.S. soldiers to stay behind as a training force, despite Washington’s demand that he do so by the end of last year. U.S. and Afghan officials have been locked in a series of heated disputes about civilian deaths in airstrikes, with the Americans now accusing Karzai of trafficking in fabricated anti-American propaganda. Adding insult to injury, Karzai is threatening to release dozens of former U.S. prisoners recently turned over to the Afghans.

U.S. officials can barely contain their contempt for Karzai. Just before joining the White House this month, new Obama counselor John Podesta called him “dangerously erratic.” One rare bright spot for the White House is that Afghanistan is set to elect a new president in April.

“What I’d like to see [Obama] say is that even though it’s been frustrating, the U.S. is in position to help lock in a lot of the gains we’ve made,” said the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon. “Al Qaeda’s not there. The Afghan forces are now strong enough to defend themselves. There are about to be big elections. … I wouldn’t expect him to talk about victory or success, but I think he can talk about locking in gains.”

The White House was so eager to clear the decks of the surveillance mess that Obama devoted a whole speech to it earlier this month, making it unnecessary for the president to say much about it Tuesday night. The subject has been a big loser for Obama, with him and other administration officials simply unable to get ahead of the steady stream of revelations from documents purloined by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

Part of Obama’s NSA reform speech sought to hand this hot potato to Congress, which has been deeply divided about how — if at all — to rein in the surveillance state. The president is likely to say Tuesday night that he’s implemented some reforms, but welcomes input from lawmakers trying to achieve a consensus on the future of the programs — and taking some of the political heat off the White House.